TodayisTuesday,September20,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
SECONDDIVISION
G.R.L45101November28,1986
ROSARIOC.MAGUAN(formerlyROSARIOC.TAN),petitioner,
vs.
THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSandSUSANALUCHAN,respondents.
AmbrosioPadillaLawOfficesforpetitioner.

PARAS,J.:p
Submitted on December 9, 1977 for Our decision is this petition for review on certiorari of the two
ResolutionsoftheCourtofAppeals,thefirstdatedJuly6,1976,settingasideitsDecisionofFebruary
16,1976inCAG.R.No.SP04706,titled"SUSANALUCHANv.Hon.HONRADO,etal."whereinitruledfor
the dismissal of the petition for lack of merit and at the same time nullifying the writ of preliminary
injunction it had previously issued and the second, dated November 4, 1976, denying the motion for
reconsiderationofthefirstresolutionabovementioned.
Petitioner is doing business under the firm name and style of SWAN MANUFACTURING" while private
respondent is likewise doing business under the firm name and style of "SUSANA LUCHAN POWDER
PUFFMANUFACTURING."
Itisundisputedthatpetitionerisapatentholderofpowderpuffnamely:
1.UM423(extendedand/orrenewedunderExtensionNo.UM109foraperiodof
5yearsfromOctober6,1971)
2.UM450(extendedand/orrenewedunderExtensionNo.UM110foraperiodof5
yearsfromJanuary26,1972)
3.UM1184,foraperiodof5yearsfromApril5,1974.(Petition,Rollo,pp.67).
InaletterdatedJuly10,1974(Annex"D",Rollo,p.86),petitionerinformedprivaterespondentthatthe
powder puffs the latter is manufacturing and selling to various enterprises particularly those in the
cosmetics industry, resemble Identical or substantially Identical powder puffs of which the former is a
patent holder under Registration Certification Nos. Extension UM109, Extension UM110 and Utility
Model No. 1184 petitioner explained such production and sale constitute infringement of said patents
andthereforeitsimmediatediscontinuanceisdemanded,otherwiseitwillbecompelledtotakejudicial
action.(Rollo,pp.78).
Privaterespondentrepliedstatingthatherproductsaredifferentandcounteredthatpetitioner'spatents
arevoidbecausetheutilitymodelsappliedforwerenotnewandpatentableandthepersontowhomthe
patents were issued was not the true and actual author nor were her rights derived from such author.
(Taken from allegations in the Answer, par. 4, Rollo, p. 93). And on July 25, 1974, private respondent
assailed the validity of the patents involved and filed with the Philippine Patent Office petitions for
cancellation of (1) Utility Model Letter Patent Extension No. UM109 (Inter Partes Case No. 838, Susana
Luchan v. Rosario C. Tan), (2) Utility Model Letters Patent No. UM1184 (Inter Partes Case No. 839,
Susana Luchan v. Rosario C. Tan), (3) Utility Model Letters Patent Extension No. UM110 (Inter Partes
CaseNo.840,SusanaLuchanv.RosarioC.Tan.(TakenfromallegationsintheAnswer,par.10,Rollo,pp.
9495).
In view thereof, petitioner, on August 24, 1974, filed a complaint for damages with injunction and
preliminary injunction against private respondent with the then Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasig

Branch,docketedasCivilCaseNo.19908,forinfringingtheaforesaidletterspatent,andprayed,among
others,thatawritofpreliminaryinjunctionbeimmediatelyissued(Complaint,Rollo,p.90).
In her answer, private respondent alleged that the products she is manufacturing and offering for sale
are not Identical, or even only substantially Identical to the products covered by petitioner's patents
and,bywayofaffirmativedefenses,furtherallegedthatpetitioner'spatentsinquestionarevoidonthe
followinggrounds:
(1)atthetimeoffilingofapplicationforthepatentsinvolved,theutilitymodels
appliedforwerenotnewandpatentableunderSec.55ofR.A.165,asamended
byR.A.864and
(2) the person to whom the patents were issued was not the true and actual
authoroftheutilitymodelsappliedfor,andneitherdidshederiveherrightsfrom
anytrueandactualauthoroftheseutilitymodels.
forthefollowingreasons:
(a)sinceyearspriortothefilingofapplicationsforthepatentsinvolved,powder
puffsofthekindappliedforwerethenalreadyexistingandpubliclybeingsoldin
themarketbothinthePhilippinesandabroadand
(b) applicant's claims in her applications, of "construction" or process of
manufacturingtheutilitymodelsappliedfor,withrespecttoUM423andUM450,
werebutacomplicatedandimpracticalversionofanold,simpleonewhichhas
been well known to the cosmetics industry since years previous to her filing of
applications, and which belonged to no one except to the general public and
withrespecttoUM1184herclaiminherapplicationofaunitarypowderpuff,was
but an limitation of a product well known to the cosmetics industry since years
previoustoherfiringofapplication,andwhichbelongedtonooneexcepttothe
generalpublic(Answer,Rollo,pp.9394).
OnSeptember18,1974,thetrialcourtissuedanOrder(Annex"K",Rollo,p.125)grantingthepreliminary
injunction prayed for by petitioner. Consequently, the corresponding writ was subsequently issued
(Annex "K1", Rollo, p. 131) enjoining the herein private respondent (then defendant) and all other
personsemployedbyher,heragents,servantsandemployeesfromdirectlyorindirectlymanufacturing,
making or causing to be made, selling or causing to be sold, or using or causing to be used in
accordance with, or embodying the utility models of the Philippine Patent Office Utility Model Letters
PatentNos.423(ExtensionNo.UM109),No.450(ExtensionNo.UM110),andUtilityModelNo.1184or
frominfringementuponorviolatingsaidletterspatentinanywaywhatsoever(Annex"K1",Rollo,p.
131).
Private respondent questioned the propriety of the trial court's issuance of the Writ of Preliminary
Injunction arguing that since there is still a pending cancellation proceedings before the Philippine
Patent Office concerning petitioner's patents, such cannot be the basis for preliminary injunction
(MotionforReconsideration,Rollo,p.132).
In an Order dated September 11, 1975, the trial court denied private respondent's motion for
reconsideration(Annex"N",Rollo,p.142).
InchallengingtheseOrdersprivaterespondentfiledapetitionforcertiorariwiththerespondentcourton
September 29, 1975 (Annex "D", Rollo, pp. 148171) reiterating among other things the invalidity of
petitioner'spatentsandprayedthatthetrialcourtberestrainedfromenforcingorcontinuingtoenforce
thefollowing:
(1)OrderdatedSeptember18,1974,grantingthepreliminaryinjunction
(2)WritofpreliminaryinjunctiondatedSeptember18,1974and
(3) Order dated September 11, 1974 denying petitioner's motion petition for
reconsideration.
OnOctober15,1975,theWritofPreliminaryInjunctionwasissuedbytherespondentCourtofAppeals
asfollows:
NOW, THEREFORE, you, respondents, and/or any person/persons acting on your stead, are
hereby ENJOINED to RESTRAIN from enforcing or continuing to enforce, the proceedings
complained of in the petition to wit: 1) Order dated September 18, 1974, granting the

preliminaryinjunction2)WritofPreliminaryInjunctiondatedSeptember18,1974andOrder
dated September 11, 1975, denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration, all issued in
connectionwithCivilCaseNo.19908,UNTILFURTHERORDERSFROMTHISCOURT.(Annex
"P",Rollo,p.1.73)
OnFebruary16,1976,respondentcourtpromulgatedadecisionthedispositiveportionofwhichreads:
WHEREFORE, finding no merit in the herein petition, the same is hereby dismissed and the
preliminaryinjunctionpreviouslyissuedbythisCourtisherebysetaside,withcosts.
SOORDERED.(CADecision,Rollo,p.189).
ln said decision respondent court stated that in disposing of the petition it tackled only the issue of
whetherthecourtaquoactedwithgraveabuseofdiscretioninissuingthechallengedorders.Itmade
clearthequestionofwhetherthepatentshavebeeninfringedornotwasnotdeterminedconsideringthe
courtaquohasyettodecidethecaseonthemerits(Ibid.,p.186).
Feelingaggrieved,privaterespondentmovedtoreconsidertheaforementionedDecisionbasedonthe
followinggrounds:
I
THAT THIS HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE EXISTENCE
OFAFAIRQUESTIONOFINVALIDITYOFPRIVATERESPONDENT'SPATENTS.
II
THAT THIS HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN NOT REJECTING THE THEORY OF
RESPONDENT JUDGE THAT HE HAS NO JURISDICTION TO INVALIDATE THE
PATENTSUPONGROUNDOFLACKOFNOVELTYOFTHEPRODUCTSPATENTED.
(MotionforReconsideration,Rollo,p.190).
Reviewingonreconsideration,respondentcourtgaveweighttoprivaterespondent'sallegationthatthe
latter's products are not identical or even only substantially identical to the products covered by
petitioner's patents. Said court noticed that contrary to the lower courts position that the court a quo
hadnojurisdictiontodeterminethequestionofinvalidityofthepatents,Section45and46ofthePatent
Lawallowthecourttomakeafindingonthevalidityorinvalidityofpatentsandintheeventthereexists
a fair question of its invalidity, the situation calls for a denial of the writ of preliminary injunction
pending the evaluation of the evidence presented (Rollo, pp. 218226). Thus, finding the lower court's
position to have been opposed to Patent Law, respondent court considered it a grave abuse of
discretion when the court a quo issued the writ being questioned without looking into the defenses
alleged by herein private respondent. Further, it considered the remedy of appeal, under the
circumstances,tobeinadequate.
Thus, on July 6, 1976, respondent court made a complete turnabout from its original decision and
promulgatedaResolution,thedispositiveportionofwhichreads:
WHEREFORE, our decision is hereby set aside. The writ of certiorari is ordered issued.
Accordingly,thechallengedorders,ExhibitHandH1andtheorderdenyingthemotionfor
reconsideration(Annex"K",Petition),areherebysetaside.Thewritofpreliminaryinjunction
previously ordered by this Court and ordered lifted by the Decision now being set aside is
herebyreinstatedandmadepermanent.Withoutpronouncementastocosts.
SOORDERED.(CAResolution,Rollo,p.226).
InaResolutiondatedNovember4,1976,respondentcourt,notpersuadedbythegroundsembodiedin
themotionforreconsiderationfiledbyhereinpetitioner(Annex"V",Rollo,p.227),deniedthesamefor
lack of merit, thereby maintaining the same stand it took in its July 6, 1976 Resolution (Rollo, p. 281).
Hence,thispetition.
On December 3, 1976, without giving due course to the petition, this Court required respondent to file
her Comment (Rollo, p. 290) which was filed on December 16, 1976 (Rollo, pp. 291316). Thereafter,
petitionerfiledherReply(Rollo,p.323)andonMay30,1977,thepetitionwasgivenduecourse(Rollo,p.
345).PetitionerfiledherbriefonJuly14,1977(Rollo,p.351)whileprivaterespondentfiledherbriefon
August25,1977(Rollo,p.359).Thereafter,petitionerhavingfailedtofilereplybrief,theCourtresolved
todeclarethecasesubmittedfordecisiononDecember9,1977(Rollo,p.359).

Theassignmentoferrorsraisedbythepetitionerinthiscase(Rollo,pp.1516)maybereducedtothree
mainissues:
(1)WhetherornotinanactionforinfringementtheCourtaquohadjurisdiction
to determine the invalidity of the patents at issue which invalidity was still
pendingconsiderationinthepatentoffice.
(2) Whether or not the Court a quo committed grave abuse of discretion in the
issuanceofawritofpreliminaryinjunction.
(3)Whetherornotcertiorariistheproperremedy.
ThefirstissuehasbeenlaidtorestinanumberofcaseswheretheCourtruledthat"Whenapatentis
soughttobeenforced,thequestionsofinvention,noveltyorprioruse,andeachofthem,areopento
judicialexamination."(Vargasv.F.M.Yaptico&Co.40Phil.199[1919]Vargasv.Chua,57Phil.790791
[1933]FrankandGohnv.Kosuyana59Phil.207[1933]).
UnderthepresentPatentLaw,thereisevenlessreasontodoubtthatthetrialcourthasjurisdictionto
declarethepatentsinquestioninvalid.Apatenteeshallhavetheexclusiverighttomake,useandsell
thepatentedarticleorproductandthemaking,using,orsellingbyanypersonwithouttheauthorization
of the patentee constitutes infringement of the patent (Sec. 37, R.A. 165). Any patentee whose rights
have been infringed upon may bring an action before the proper CFI now (RTC) and to secure an
injunctionfortheprotectionofhisrights(Sec.42,R.A.165).Defensesinanactionforinfringementare
provided for in Section 45 of the same law which in fact were availed of by private respondent in this
case.Then,ascorrectlystatedbyrespondentCourtofAppeals,thisconclusionisreinforcedbySec.46
of the same law which provides that if the Court shall find the patent or any claim thereof invalid, the
Directorshalloncertificationofthefinaljudgment...issueanordercancellingthepatentortheclaims
found invalid and shall publish a notice thereof in the Official Gazette." Upon such certification, it is
ministerialonthepartofthepatentofficetoexecutethejudgment.(Rollo,pp.221222).
II.
Theburdenofprooftosubstantiateachargeofinfringementiswiththeplaintiff.Butwheretheplaintiff
introduces the patent in evidence, and the same is in due form, there is created a prima facie
presumptionofitscorrectnessandvalidity.ThedecisionoftheCommissioner(nowDirector)ofPatent
ingrantingthepatentispresumedtobecorrect.Theburdenofgoingforwardwiththeevidence(burden
ofevidence)thenshiftstothedefendanttoovercomebycompetentevidencethislegalpresumption.
Thequestionthenintheinstantcaseiswhetherornottheevidenceintroducedbyprivaterespondent
hereinissufficienttoovercomesaidpresumption.
After a careful review of the evidence consisting of 64 exhibits and oral testimonies of five witnesses
presented by private respondents before the Court of First Instance before the Order of preliminary
injunction was issued as well as those presented by the petitioner, respondent Court of Appeals was
satisfiedthatthereisaprimafacieshowingofafairquestionofinvalidityofpetitioner'spatentsonthe
ground of lack of novelty. As pointed out by said appellate court said evidence appeared not to have
been considered at all by the court aquo for alleged lack of jurisdiction, on the mistaken notion that
suchquestioninwithintheexclusivejurisdictionofthepatentoffice.
Ithasbeenrepeatedlyheldthataninventionmustpossesstheessentialelementsofnovelty,originality
and precedence and for the patentee to be entitled to protection, the invention must be new to the
world. Accordingly, a single instance of public use of the invention by a patentee for more than two
years(nowformorethanoneyearonlyunderSec.9ofthePatentLaw)beforethedateofhisapplication
forhispatent,willbefatalto,thevalidityofthepatentwhenissued.(Frank,etal.v.KosuyamaVargasv.
F.M.Yaptico&Co.andVargasv.Chua,etal.,supra).
Thelawprovides:
SEC.9.Inventionnotconsideredneworpatentable.Aninventionshallnotbeconsidered
neworcapableofbeingpatentedifitwasknownorusedbyothersinthePhilippinesbefore
theinventionthereofbytheinventornamedinanapplicationforpatentfortheinventionor
if it was patented or described in any printed publication in the Philippines or any foreign
countrymorethanoneyearbeforetheapplicationforapatenttherefororifithadbeenin
public use or on sale in the Philippines for more than one year before the application for a
patent therefor or if it is the subject matter of a validity issued patent in the Philippines
grantedonanapplicationfiledbeforethefilingoftheapplicationforpatenttherefor.

Thus, more specifically, under American Law from which our Patent Law was derived (Vargas v. F.M.
Yaptico&Co.supra) it is generally held that in patent cases a preliminary injunction will not issue for
patent infringement unless the validity of the patent is clear and beyond question. The issuance of
letterspatent,standingalone,isnotsufficienttosupportsuchdrasticrelief(8Deller'sWalkeronPatents
p.406).Incasesofinfringementofpatentnopreliminaryinjunctionwillbegrantedunlessthepatentis
validandinfringedbeyondquestionandtherecordconclusivelyprovesthedefenseissham.(Ibid., p.
402)
Inthesamemanner,underourjurisprudence,asageneralrulebecauseoftheinjuriousconsequencesa
writofinjunctionmaybring,therighttothereliefdemandedmustbeclearandunmistakable.(Sangkiv.
Comelec, 21 SCRA 1392 December 26, 1967) and the dissolution of the writ is proper where applicant
hasdoubtfultitletothedisputedproperty.(Ramosv.C.A.,95SCRA359).
III.
It will be noted that the validity of petitioner's patents is in question for want of novelty. Private
respondentcontendsthatpowderpuffsIdenticalinappearancewiththatcoveredbypetitioner'spatents
existed and were publicly known and used as early as 1963 long before petitioner was issued the
patentsinquestion.(ListofExhibits,Rollo,pp.194199).AscorrectlyobservedbyrespondentCourtof
Appeals, "since sufficient proofs have been introduced in evidence showing a fair question of the
invalidity of the patents issued for such models, it is but right that the evidence be looked into,
evaluated and determined on the merits so that the matter of whether the patents issued were in fact
validornotmayberesolved."(Rollo,pp.286287).
All these notwithstanding, the trial court nonetheless issued the writ of preliminary injunction which
underthecircumstancesshouldbedenied.
For failure to determine first the validity of the patents before aforesaid issuance of the writ, the trial
courtfailedtosatisfythetworequisitesnecessaryifaninjunctionistoissue,namely:theexistenceof
therighttobeprotectedandtheviolationofsaidright.(BuayanCattleCo.,Inc.v.Quintillan,128SCRA
276).
Undertheaboveestablishedprinciples,itappearsobviousthatthetrialcourtcommittedagraveabuse
ofdiscretionwhichmakescertioraritheappropriateremedy.
AsfoundbyrespondentCourtofAppeals,theinjunctiveorderofthetrialcourtisofsogeneralatenor
thatpetitionermaybetotallybarredfromthesaleofanykindofpowderpuff.Underthecircumstances,
respondentappellatecourtisoftheviewthatordinaryappealisobviouslyinadequate.(Rollo,p.288).A
parallel was drawn from a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanchez v. Hon. Court of
Appeals,69SCRA328[1976]wheretheFirstDivisionoftheSupremeCourtruledthat"Theprerogative
writ of certiorari may be applied for by proper petition notwithstanding the existence of the regular
remedyofanappealinduecausewhenamongotherreasons,thebroaderinterestsofjusticesorequire
oranordinaryappealisnotanadequateremedy."
Private respondent maintains the position that the resolutions sought to be appealed from had long
become final and executory for failure of Hon. Reynaldo P. Honrado, the trial court judge, to appeal by
certiorarifromtheresolutionsofrespondentCourtofAppeals.(Rollo,pp.291292).
Suchcontentionisuntenable.
There is no dispute that petitioner has seasonably petitioned. On the other hand, it is elementary that
thetrialjudgeisamerenominalpartyasclearlyprovidedinSection5,Rule65oftheRevisedRulesof
Courtwhereitshallbethedutyofsuchpersonorpersonsinterestedinsustainingtheproceedingsin
court,"toappearanddefend,bothinhisortheirownbehalfandinbehalfofthecourtorjudgeaffected
bytheproceedings."
Relativethereto"thejudgewhoseorderisunderattackismerelyanominalpartywherefore,ajudgein
his official capacity should not be made to appear as a party seeking reversal of a decision that is
unfavorabletotheactiontakenbyhim."(Hon.Alcasidv.Samson,102Phil.735736Taronav.Sayo,67
SCRA508,524LimSev.Argel,70SCRA378).
Astopetitioner'sclaimofprescription,privaterespondent'scontentionthatsuchreferstothefilingof
petitions for cancellation in the Patent Office under Sec. 28 of the Patent Law and not to a defense
againstanactionforinfringementunderSec.45thereofwhichmayberaisedanytime,isevidentunder
aforesaidlaw.
PREMISESCONSIDERED,theassailedresolutionsoftheCourtofAppealsareherebyAFFIRMED.

SOORDERED.
Feria(Chairman),Fernan,Gutierrez,Jr.,andFeliciano,*JJ.,concur.
Alampay,J.,tooknopart.

Footnotes
*JusticeAlampaytooknopart.JusticeFelicianowasdesignatedtositintheSecond
Division.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation